A Critical Review of Measures of Gender Equitable Attitudes: Recommendations for Conceptualization and Future Assessment

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL Sex Roles Pub Date : 2024-02-12 DOI:10.1007/s11199-024-01441-w
Jill C. Hoxmeier, Erin A. Casey, Juliana Carlson, Claire Willey-Sthapit
{"title":"A Critical Review of Measures of Gender Equitable Attitudes: Recommendations for Conceptualization and Future Assessment","authors":"Jill C. Hoxmeier, Erin A. Casey, Juliana Carlson, Claire Willey-Sthapit","doi":"10.1007/s11199-024-01441-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Gender equality is a global priority that has yet to be realized. The factors that shape individuals’ ideas about, or attitudinal commitment to, gender equity has been the focus of much research. In this body of literature, however, gender equitable attitudes (GEA) have been labeled, defined, and measured in many ways. Using literature identified in an earlier review of predictors of gender equitable attitudes among men, the goals of this review are to: 1) describe the range of ways that GEA were defined, labeled, and measured inclusive of seven dimensions drawn from existing literature; 2) identify strengths and gaps in the measures reflected in this review as well as assess the need for the refinement and expansion of our conceptualization of GEA to include broader contexts in which these attitudes play out; and 3) provide a compendium of measures to serve as a resource for scholars conducting GEA research. Across 69 studies that met inclusion criteria, 38 unique measures assessing GEA were included in this review. We describe these measures with respect to the conceptual and operational definitions of GEA, life domains captured in the GEA measures, target demographics, psychometric and validity evidence, and the conceptualization of gender within the measures. Following this analysis, we use the data extracted in each of the seven dimensions to make recommendations for future measures of GEA and considerations when assessing GEA.</p>","PeriodicalId":48425,"journal":{"name":"Sex Roles","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sex Roles","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01441-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gender equality is a global priority that has yet to be realized. The factors that shape individuals’ ideas about, or attitudinal commitment to, gender equity has been the focus of much research. In this body of literature, however, gender equitable attitudes (GEA) have been labeled, defined, and measured in many ways. Using literature identified in an earlier review of predictors of gender equitable attitudes among men, the goals of this review are to: 1) describe the range of ways that GEA were defined, labeled, and measured inclusive of seven dimensions drawn from existing literature; 2) identify strengths and gaps in the measures reflected in this review as well as assess the need for the refinement and expansion of our conceptualization of GEA to include broader contexts in which these attitudes play out; and 3) provide a compendium of measures to serve as a resource for scholars conducting GEA research. Across 69 studies that met inclusion criteria, 38 unique measures assessing GEA were included in this review. We describe these measures with respect to the conceptual and operational definitions of GEA, life domains captured in the GEA measures, target demographics, psychometric and validity evidence, and the conceptualization of gender within the measures. Following this analysis, we use the data extracted in each of the seven dimensions to make recommendations for future measures of GEA and considerations when assessing GEA.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对性别平等态度衡量标准的严格审查:关于概念化和未来评估的建议
性别平等是一个尚未实现的全球优先事项。塑造个人性别平等观念或态度承诺的因素一直是许多研究的重点。然而,在这些文献中,性别平等态度(GEA)有很多标签、定义和测量方法。本综述利用早先对男性性别公平态度的预测因素进行综述时所发现的文献,其目标是1)描述 GEA 的定义、标签和测量方法的范围,包括从现有文献中提取的七个维度;2)确定本综述中反映的测量方法的优势和不足,并评估完善和扩展我们的 GEA 概念化的必要性,以包括这些态度所处的更广泛的环境;以及 3)提供一份测量方法汇编,作为开展 GEA 研究的学者的资源。在符合纳入标准的 69 项研究中,有 38 项评估 GEA 的独特测量方法被纳入本综述。我们从 GEA 的概念和操作定义、GEA 测量所涵盖的生活领域、目标人口统计学、心理测量和有效性证据以及测量中的性别概念化等方面对这些测量进行了描述。在分析之后,我们利用在七个维度中提取的数据,对未来的 GEA 测量方法和评估 GEA 时的注意事项提出建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Sex Roles
Sex Roles Multiple-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Sex Roles: A Journal of Research is a global, multidisciplinary, scholarly, social and behavioral science journal with a feminist perspective. It publishes original research reports as well as original theoretical papers and conceptual review articles that explore how gender organizes people’s lives and their surrounding worlds, including gender identities, belief systems, representations, interactions, relations, organizations, institutions, and statuses. The range of topics covered is broad and dynamic, including but not limited to the study of gendered attitudes, stereotyping, and sexism; gendered contexts, culture, and power; the intersections of gender with race, class, sexual orientation, age, and other statuses and identities; body image; violence; gender (including masculinities) and feminist identities; human sexuality; communication studies; work and organizations; gendered development across the life span or life course; mental, physical, and reproductive health and health care; sports; interpersonal relationships and attraction; activism and social change; economic, political, and legal inequities; and methodological challenges and innovations in doing gender research.
期刊最新文献
Not All of Me Is Welcome Here: The Experiences of Trans and Gender Expansive Employees of Color in the U.S. Being Not Binary: Experiences and Functions of Gender and Gender Communities In Their Own Words: Re-Examining Gender Differences in Career Interests and Motivations in a New Generation Think Manager-Think Male Re-Examined: Race as a Moderator Playing the Game Differently: How Women Leaders in Academia Are Challenging Neopatriarchy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1